A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server for a personal knowledge base that captures and structures idea fragments, enabling MCP-capable agents to search, retrieve, and add notes with semantic links and clustering.
3
MIT
SPLIDIA — operational notes and capabilities
by com.splidia
Server Details
Fibre optics, OTDR, network design and data centre notes from SPLIDIA, plus its service catalogue.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
4 toolscapabilitiesCSIDIA group services and profileBInspect
Profilo del gruppo CSIDIA e catalogo dei servizi: chi siamo, posizionamento, capacità (cosa facciamo, risultati, settori, modelli di erogazione, pagina, articoli correlati), settori, vincoli e come iniziare. csidia = dati/AI/conformità, splidia = fibra ottica/reti/data center. / Profile of the CSIDIA group and its service catalogue: positioning, capabilities, sectors, delivery models, constraints and how to start.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Marchio di cui restituire il profilo (default all) / brand to profile | |
| detail | No | false (default) = una riga per capacità, risposta compatta; true = descrizione completa, risultati, domande tipiche e articoli correlati / false (default) = one line per capability; true = full detail | |
| language | No | Lingua dei testi (default it) / text language | |
| capability_id | No | Dettaglio di una sola capacità, per id (es. 'conformita-documentale-assistita') / detail for a single capability id |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication, nor does it mention any side effects or rate limits. The description only lists content categories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences covering both Italian and English, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and key differentiators, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists content topics (positioning, capabilities, sectors) but does not specify the output structure or format, which is important given no output schema. Behavioral context is missing, but the parameter details are adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds limited extra value. It does clarify that 'site' distinguishes brands and 'detail' controls response verbosity, but these align with schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the profile of the CSIDIA group and service catalogue, including capabilities, sectors, and constraints. It differentiates between csidia and splidia, but the verb is implicit rather than explicit, preventing a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'fetch' or 'search'. The description distinguishes internal brand options but does not address alternative tools, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch a full articleAInspect
Ritorna il testo integrale di un articolo dato il suo id (l'URL restituito da 'search'). / Returns the full text of an article given its id (the URL returned by 'search').
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id/URL dell'articolo |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns full text, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or what happens if the id is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences (bilingual) that front-load the key functionality. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It could optionally mention the return type or format, but the lack is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the id is the URL returned by 'search', which provides context beyond the schema's generic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('fetch'/'Ritorna') and resource ('full text of an article') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the id is the URL from 'search'. The bilingual text reinforces understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after 'search' by referencing its output. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_use_caseMatch a need to CSIDIA capabilitiesAInspect
Data la descrizione libera di un'esigenza operativa, restituisce le capacità del gruppo CSIDIA più pertinenti, con il perché (termini che hanno fatto match), il sito di riferimento, il modello di erogazione, gli articoli correlati e il passo successivo. Se non c'è corrispondenza lo dice e restituisce il profilo sintetico. / Given a free-text operational need, returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with the reason for the match, reference site, delivery model, related articles and next step.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Descrizione libera dell'esigenza o del problema / free-text description of the need | |
| limit | No | Numero massimo di capacità (default 3) | |
| sector | No | Settore di riferimento, id o nome (es. manufacturing, energy, logistics, public-sector, healthcare, defence, telecomunicazioni, data-center, industria) / sector id or name | |
| language | No | Lingua dei testi (default it) / text language |
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (matched capabilities with reason, site, etc.) and behavior on no match (says so and returns synthetic profile). Does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but adequately covers core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two bilingual sentences, front-loaded with Italian then English. Compact but slightly redundant due to bilingual nature. No waste; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (reason, site, etc.) and failure case. However, it does not reference optional parameters like limit, sector, or language in the description text. Still sufficient for a matching tool with good schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, achieving baseline. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema definitions (e.g., 'free-text need' is already in schema). No parameter-specific elaboration in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('restituisce/returns') and resource ('capacità del gruppo CSIDIA / CSIDIA capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: 'capabilities' likely lists all, while this tool matches a specific need. The bilingual text reinforces the specific action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when you have a free-text need) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. No comparison to sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'search', so context-aware selection is left to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch CSIDIA group articlesAInspect
Cerca negli articoli (Note operative) di csidia.com (dati, AI, conformità nei settori critici) e splidia.com (fibra ottica, reti, data center). Ritorna una lista di risultati con id da passare a 'fetch'. / Searches the operational notes of csidia.com and splidia.com. Returns results whose id can be passed to 'fetch'.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Filtro sito (default all) | |
| limit | No | Numero massimo di risultati (default 8) | |
| query | Yes | Termini di ricerca / search terms | |
| language | No | Filtro lingua (default all) |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns results with IDs, implying a read-only operation, but omits details like result ordering, pagination, latency, or any side effects. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that cover the purpose, scope, and linkage to a sibling tool. Bilingual but no wasted words. Front-loaded with actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains that the result list contains IDs for use with 'fetch'. It covers what is searched and how to proceed. Could mention result fields briefly, but acceptable for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions and enums, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The mention of returning IDs provides some output context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches operational notes from two specific sites (csidia.com and splidia.com) with their domains. It uses a specific verb ('cerca' / 'searches') and resource ('articoli' / 'operational notes'), and explicitly ties results to the sibling tool 'fetch', distinguishing it from other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates that returned results can be passed to 'fetch', establishing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
- First observed
capabilities - First observed
fetch - First observed
match_use_case - First observed
search
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Point Topic public MCP: UK broadband market reference data — ISPs, networks, links and standards.
SIP/VoIP/telecom grounding for AI agents: vendor docs, RFCs, STIR/SHAKEN, traces, configs.
Live DNS, email-auth and redirect checks, HTTP security headers, uptime history, PC hardware prices.
Services, case studies, articles and contact details of software architect Dan Podina.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that parses 3GPP .docx specifications into structured sections with full-text search, letting LLMs browse, search, and follow cross-references without a vector database.41316MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA local, private hybrid-search MCP server for searching markdown notes using BM25 + vector fusion with local embeddings via Ollama.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI agents to search, discover, and retrieve technical specifications from a SpecLib instance. It provides tools for full-text search, scope listing, and reading specs as markdown content.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities provides a static overview, fetch retrieves full articles, match_use_case maps needs to capabilities, and search finds articles. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix parts of speech and styles: 'capabilities' (noun), 'fetch' (bare verb), 'match_use_case' (verb_noun with underscore), 'search' (bare verb). While each is clear, there is no consistent naming pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose—providing a service catalogue and searchable operational notes. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary excess or glaring omissions.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the intended use: viewing the profile, searching articles, fetching full text, and matching use cases. No obvious gaps for a static catalogue and search system.